ln_remote_query

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses automatic payment via Phoenixd and transaction logging, which adds context. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if payment fails, or any rate limits. More detail would improve transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear opening statement followed by parameter details. It avoids unnecessary words and is efficient, though slightly lengthy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (micropayments, remote query) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description covers the core workflow. However, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., JSON structure) and possible error scenarios, leaving some gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description provides explanations for all three parameters (gateway_url, operation, params), including valid operations list and params as JSON string. This adds significant value over the schema, though the params description is somewhat vague.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it queries a remote Lightning Memory gateway and lists supported operations. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'ln_vendor_reputation' which share operation names, potentially causing confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the tool's mechanism (L402 payment, Phoenixd) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'memory_query' or other sibling tools. There are no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.